Re: [patch 13/16] sched: update_cfs_shares at period edge

2012-10-02 Thread Paul Turner
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM, "Jan H. Schönherr" wrote: > Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com: >> From: Paul Turner >> >> Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the >> posting >> of update_shares() to be about each period overflow. This is a large cost

Re: [patch 13/16] sched: update_cfs_shares at period edge

2012-10-02 Thread Paul Turner
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jan H. Schönherr schn...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote: Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com: From: Paul Turner p...@google.com Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the posting of update_shares() to be about each period

Re: [patch 13/16] sched: update_cfs_shares at period edge

2012-09-24 Thread Jan H. Schönherr
Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com: > From: Paul Turner > > Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the > posting > of update_shares() to be about each period overflow. This is a large cost > saving for frequently switching tasks. [snip] > @@ -1181,6

Re: [patch 13/16] sched: update_cfs_shares at period edge

2012-09-24 Thread Jan H. Schönherr
Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com: From: Paul Turner p...@google.com Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the posting of update_shares() to be about each period overflow. This is a large cost saving for frequently switching tasks. [snip] @@